This blog is mostly devoted to discussing educational policy issues and politics in Utah. This is meant to be a place to gather my research and thoughts into detailed explanations that hopefully add clarity to the discussion of public education. Many of the issues are multi-faceted and need to be examined thoroughly. Thus, some posts will be boring long. Come here looking for what I now understand. I will re-organize and readdress issues as I learn more.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

An omnibus bill is a rotten, non-transparent method to pass legislation even if all of the bills contained are good. Not that I believe there commonly are 100% clean omnibus bills. Many of us have been frustrated when omnibus bills are used on the federal level and pork is stuck into a farm bill or an energy bill. Unfortunately, and in keeping with federal tradition, the only reason legislative leadership used the omnibus bill at the end of the legislative session last March was to lump some failed education bills in with eight stronger bills and pass them through with no scrutiny. Senator Stephenson claimed the omnibus was just to reduce confusion among the coordinating clauses in the bills. The point was made during the floor debate that the legislative staff has successfully coordinated hundreds of bills every session for decades. You can check the BS yourself by looking at the amended code sections in the original bill texts and then checking out the arduous cut-and-paste job done into SB 2.

HB 278 and HB 200 were probably the two worst bills passed in this dishonest fashion; both had failed floor votes in previous days precisely because they were illogical uses of education funds. I'll address HB 278 another time.

Let’s look at HB 200, the UPSTART program or “laptops for preschoolers” bill, and three puzzling aspects of its passage. (Lines 258-397 of the Omnibus bill, SB 2) It allocates $1,000,000 for the current school year to purchase instructional reading software for families, hardware and internet service for needy families, and for an audit on the program. The original had the same funding for the first year, but included $2.5 million more per year through 2014. The update included in SB 2 includes an option for the legislature to continue the program with no funding stipulated. (Update: Oops. I looked at the wrong bill and missed the actual costs. The bill allocates $1 million the first year and $2.5 million each year after that.)

1. First rotten aspect. The bill calls for a Request for Proposals (RFP) to find a contractor to provide a contractor with a laundry list of requirements, but the media reports from the very beginning explained the program as involving the Waterford Reading Software. My House representative also repeated to me both during and after the session that the Waterford software would be used in the program’s year trial. Where did that belief come from? Is it legal to already have a winner chosen before a RFP is even conducted? I recall hearing something in a recent session about a bill containing an exact copy of a company’s listed services. Is that what happened here? Why Waterford? Here’s the relevant language from the bill:

281 (3) The State Board of Education shall contract with an educational technology________________________________________ 282 provider, selected through a request for proposals process, for the delivery of a home-based 283 educational technology program for preschool children that meets the requirements of 284 Subsection (4). 285 (4) A home-based educational technology program for preschool children shall meet the 286 following standards: 287 (a) the contractor shall provide computer-assisted instruction for preschool children on 288 a home computer connected by the Internet to a centralized file storage facility; 289 (b) the contractor shall: 290 (i) provide technical support to families for the installation and operation of the 291 instructional software; and 292 (ii) provide for the installation of computer and Internet access in homes of low income 293 families that cannot afford the equipment and service; 294 (c) the contractor shall have the capability of doing the following through the Internet: 295 (i) communicating with parents; 296 (ii) updating the instructional software; 297 (iii) validating user access; 298 (iv) collecting usage data; 299 (v) storing research data; and 300 (vi) producing reports for parents, schools, and the Legislature; 301 (d) the program shall include the following components: 302 (i) computer-assisted, individualized instruction in reading, mathematics, and science; 303 (ii) a multisensory reading tutoring program; and 304 (iii) a validated computer adaptive reading test that does not require the presence of 305 trained adults to administer and is an accurate indicator of reading readiness of children who 306 cannot read; 307 (e) the contractor shall have the capability to quickly and efficiently modify, improve, 308 and support the product; 309 (f) the contractor shall work in cooperation with school district personnel who will________________________________________ 310 provide administrative and technical support of the program as provided in Section 311 53A-1a-1003 ; 312 (g) the contractor shall solicit families to participate in the program as provided in 313 Section 53A-1a-1004 ; and 314 (h) in implementing the home-based educational technology program, the contractor 315 shall seek the advise and expertise of early childhood education professionals within the Utah 316 System of Higher Education on issues such as: 317 (i) soliciting families to participate in the program; 318 (ii) providing training to families; and 319 (iii) motivating families to regularly use the instructional software. 320 (5) The contract shall provide funding for a home-based educational technology 321 program for preschool children for one year with an option to extend the contract for additional 322 years or to expand the program to a greater number of preschool children, subject to the 323 appropriation of money by the Legislature for UPSTART.

There is nothing mentioning Waterford at all. Why would the legislators know the winner of the RFP months before it even took place? (I wish I knew the status of that RFP and whether schools are using the program currently.)

Wow. The language requires the contractor to not only have a product that accurately measures the reading readiness of children who cannot read (Lines 304-306), but stipulates that the company must install the software, solicit families to participate in the program, and motivate them to regularly use the software.

Recalling an earlier post on educational “research,” I searched around on the web for how the Waterford software works. The Waterford Institute is a non-profit organization dedicated to integrating technology into learning. They sell their early reading program through Pearson/Prentice Hall, a corporation dedicated to selling expensive software and textbooks to schools.

Here’s the Pearson order page I first found with impressive claims, rosy promotional literature, and “research” proving the efficacy of the program. Notice that none of the research here has any direct link to the program. They are a bunch of separate studies recommending different actions, and the program just claims to meet all 6 pages worth of objectives. There is no actual evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Software.

As I searched further, I did find a page with some actual research of the program on the Waterford Site. It was tucked in a page citing the same long laundry list of other reading research they claim validates their program. I skimmed to evaluate the two actual effectiveness studies. The Waterford software receives high praise for its effects on low readers, and the studies appear at least decent, despite a few methodological concerns. (The higher quality study done for an educational journal has a much smaller sample and only lasts 6 months; the study by some advocacy foundation has a much larger number of students and lasts 3 years, but has issues with the testing procedures.) However, both studies specifically address the use of the software in a classroom setting and say that the teacher significantly affected the positive reading gains. There is no data available on using the program at home with pre-school age children and no teacher. The trial here in Utah could contribute to a study of that if someone is documenting the effort.

However, a troubling aspect of the site was the Terms of Use which expressly spell out that our investment is not guaranteed. I’m pasting into two separate paragraphs and the subheadings they fall under:

Disclaimer of Warranties

YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT:b) PEARSON MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT (i) THIS SITE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, (ii) THIS SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE, (iii) THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THIS SITE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE, (iv) THE QUALITY OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIAL PURCHASED OR OBTAINED BY YOU THROUGH THIS SITE WILL MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS, AND (v) ANY ERRORS OR DEFECTS IN THIS SITE WILL BE CORRECTED.

Limitation of LiabilityIN NO EVENT SHALL PEARSON BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE OR DATA, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE LOSS OF DATA AND/OR THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THIS SITE; (ii) THE COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS AND SERVICES RESULTING FROM ANY GOODS, DATA, INFORMATION OR SERVICES PURCHASED OR OBTAINED OR MESSAGES RECEIVED OR TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO THROUGH OR FROM THIS SITE; (iii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iv) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THIS SITE; OR (v) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THIS SITE.

I can understand not wanting to be liable for hackers or inevitable small glitches, but there is no guarantee EVER that the site will be “accurate or reliable.” Pearson is not liable in any way for any matter relating to the site, even if the school is unable to use the site. Maybe this is “normal” legalese and means nothing, but I know I’d be concerned about signing a personal contract for a product with these provisos.

2. Second fishy aspect. Paul Rolly reported in May that Cap Ferry, former Utah Senate president and current lobbyist extraordinaire, was pushing the Waterford software’s use to the legislators. Another person with some knowledge of the bill called it “A solution looking for a problem.”

3. Third slightly rancid, but key, undisclosed fact about the Waterford Program. Waterford and Pearson charge $3400, plus an installation fee, for EACH computer the Waterford Early Reading Program is installed on.

Last summer, I called the 1-888 number that was the only contact information I could find on the Pearson website. I asked about purchasing the Waterford software and was given the number to a local representative. The site has improved since then and you can find his number directly on the Pearson site now. The rep. was very helpful and explained that the Waterford program was the top-of-the-line intervention for low-achieving readers and told me of some local elementary schools using the program.

We discussed cost, and each computer equipped with Waterford Early Reading would cost $3400 plus an installation fee. Multiple users can then use that computer, but that efficiency is lost when the computer is specifically provided for the home. There is a lesser program, Success Maker, which costs only $1150 per computer and another program, ELLIS, specifically geared to those students learning English as a second language for $1000 per computer. The Waterford software, while supposedly superior, costs three times as much as similar interventions.

At the end of our conversation, I asked the rep. if the state had purchased the software yet, and he got nervous. He said that it wasn’t for sure yet and quickly changed the subject.

If the $1,000,000 allocated to the program this year were completely spent on $3400 fees, we could provide 294 homes with Waterford Software. However, there is the undisclosed installation fee per computer on top of that, up to $75,000 of the million can be spent on auditing and evaluation, and at least some homes will be provided with newly purchased computers and internet service as well. I wonder if 200 homes provided with software would be an accurate estimation of how many will be served by this program this year? (Update: Many fewer homes would get the program the first year, while up to 600+ could be served in following years...probably...if my estimates are close. )

The software had better be good to justify a $3400+ pricetag for each program. I would like to know who originally proposed the idea for the bill to Rep. Last, what information Cap Ferry gave to the legislators, if other programs or reading interventions were discussed, what that research process looked like, what donations if any were given by Waterford employees to campaign funds, and what was said during the original debate of the bill. During the Senate debate of SB 2 on the second to last day of the session, Sen. Stephenson said it was as good as funding Head Start. I want to believe that the bill came about from a sincere search for reading remediation, and not to provide a corporate handout…but I’m awfully suspicious. Regardless, Cap Ferry’s client is no doubt finding his lobbying fees worth the expense.

6 comments:

"Tail wagging the dog" RFPs are unfortunately common. Either the RFP is created with a specific bidder in mind OR it gets massaged to encompassed actions that it was never intended to accomplish. The bidding process is so often "black box" so that the public never gets a chance to review it. We certainly must demand more transparency in these processes.

The lawsuit claiming SB2 (including the UPSTART portion) is unconstitutional is moving forward. A couple of weeks ago a district judge ruled the legislature cannot directly intervene in the suit. (They'll have to work through--or more accurately, make suggestions to--the AG's office.)

I just found your website after doing a search for waterford upstart. I found out about upstart through a friend of mine who started her daughter in the program. So I got in contact with them answered a few questions (such as annual income, etc.) and my son was accepted in their program. The program is ok at best. Annoying to say the least. It felt very invasive as they knew and were logging all this information about you and your children. Then come to find out through your site that it is for low income kids. We are most definitely not in the low-income category. And how would kids in low-income category even be able to receive this type of services when most do not have access to computers. I'm a little more than disgusted with them at the moment especially after reading your post. I just wish there was some way of holding them accountable.

I have a sister that has a child currently participating in the upstart program, and a daughter of my own on the waiting list. I'd like to clarify what I understand of the program: First - This program is NOT only for low-income families. The program is available to everyone, and to not discriminate between those who have computers at home and those that can't afford computers, they will provide a computer to lease at no cost to run the program. So, if you already have a computer that can run the program, the only cost to the state is to pay the install fee (which when I asked, was about $120.00) and the monthly subscription ($30.00). SECOND - This program is to help students perform better in the first years of school. I myself teach at a private school, and I can tell you from experience that students that come to school with a prior knowledge of the material have a huge advantage. They also develop confidence that will aid them in learning for the rest of their live.

I hope that the legislator will continue this program. We are eagerly waiting for our turn to join the program. I can say from my own experience that I feel like this is a big help to our students.

Hi I am curious did your child complete the program. Our city is starting the program and I curious is it worth it... I am nervous with amount of screen time the program is demanding on a 4 year old child.